The QO and the current CBA

[koufax37]

Everybody is forgetting two mistakes were made:
 
1) The Red Sox offered him $14m to play shortstop for them, when they don't really want to pay him $14m to play shortstop for them in 2014. 
2) Drew fully understanding the rules of the CBA (and understanding them when he signed his non-QO 1 year deal without including a no-QO clause, etc, knowing that realistically you only get them when you don't want them).
 
I'm really glad he said no following our mistake in #1.  Maybe we had enough information to expect him to say no, making it a low risk gamble on our part, or that comparing three possible outcomes (Drew at $14m, no QO no draft pick, or QO we get a pick) the game theory had us happy to eliminate the no-Drew no-Pick scenario.  But I still think the offer was a bad idea unless you were fairly certain he would turn it down.
 
I think the system is more broken for players who should turn down a QO, not for ones who shouldn't have in hindsight but didn't guess the post-QO market well enough.  Poor Robbie Cano obviously had some serious financial losses because Seattle had to calculate in surrendering a draf....no wait.  Scratch that.  I don't think the QO drag on contract options that Drew is complaining about holds water in either case.
 
It is like 17th most unfair thing in the CBA getting in the way of millionaires getting the most they can get.
 
Mike Trout making $1m this season is way less fair than Drew turning down $14m and finding the Mets would rather have Tejada and their third round pick than Drew.
 
If you are worth more than the QO, you are going to do fine regardless.  If you are worth less than the QO, take the damn QO or accept fewer dollars elsewhere when the draft pick is factored in.
 
It is a drag on free agency, and is intended as one.  It is amplified with the current pick infatuation many clubs are displaying and it is amplified when a team makes a silly QO and a player turns down said silly QO.  But Drew knew the rules, played his hand, and felt like it backfired (until he gets his multi-year deal in a couple weeks anyway).

 

[Hank Scorpio]

I think you guys are over-thinking things by attaching the value of a draft pick to Drew's 2013 earnings.
 
A one year, $9.5M contract is a fairly safe investment for a player like Drew, even with his injury history. Aside from his poor, injury-riddled 2012, his WAR for the previous 1.9, 4.0, 2.9, 2.9.
 
To get anything more than 2 wins out of him would be a relative bargain. If he turned out to be healthy, he was likely to post closer to 3 wins (which he did).
 
Even still, if he was less than what the Red Sox expected, and only posted 1 - 1.5 wins, it wouldn't be a colossal disaster economically.
 
Fast forward to this off season, and the Red Sox probably already had a plan in place:
 
1: If Drew's 2013 performance warrants a contract of more than say $10M/yr (arbitrary figure), offer him the QO. Even if a one year contract for $14M is a massive overpay, Drew would likely reject the QO to seek a three or four year deal.
 
2: If Drew's 2013 performance warrants a contract of less than $10M/yr, he's likely going to look for another pillow contract, and thus accept the QO in what would be a waste of resources for the Red Sox. In this case they would not offer the QO.
 
As for fixing the QO system, what if picks weren't forfeited, but rather slotted down?
 
- Top 10 picks are no longer protected from being lost to QOFA signings, but are protected from being "leap frogged" by teams receiving compensation.
- If Team A signs a QOFA from Team B, then Team B takes Team A's highest round draft slot. Team A's draft slot would be moved to the bottom of the round.
- Teams signing QOFAs and slotted at the bottom of the draft will be slotted in their original draft order amongst those teams.
 
Example, the Yankees sign Ellsbury from Boston, Orioles sign Nelson Cruz from Texas, assume bold teams are "protected picks".
 
Original Draft Order: Yankees, Blue Jays, White Sox, Padres, Indians, Orioles, Rangers, Red Sox.
 
New Draft Order: Blue Jays, White Sox, Red Sox, Padres, Indians, Rangers, Yankees, Orioles.

 

[OttoC]

Did Drew get screwed or did he and/or his agent misjudge the situation? He could have gotten $14M for 2104 by accepting the QO from Boston. I didn't take the time to look at NL rosters but eight of the AL teams had shortstops signed to long-term contracts, two of them had pre-arbitration players and one had a player going into arbitration. Jose Reyes (TOR) and Jhonny Peralta (DET) were signed for more than Drew's QO, while Elvis Andrus (TEX) is set to join them in 2015. Until we know what he has turned down other than Boston's offer, how can we feel sorry for him?
 
As for the Player's Association signing off on things, that might just be a trade-off: you give us this and we'll give you that.

 

[JakeRae]

Did Drew get screwed or did he and/or his agent misjudge the situation? He could have gotten $14M for 2104 by accepting the QO from Boston. I didn't take the time to look at NL rosters but eight of the AL teams had shortstops signed to long-term contracts, two of them had pre-arbitration players and one had a player going into arbitration. Jose Reyes (TOR) and Jhonny Peralta (DET) were signed for more than Drew's QO, while Elvis Andrus (TEX) is set to join them in 2015. Until we know what he has turned down other than Boston's offer, how can we feel sorry for him?
 
As for the Player's Association signing off on things, that might just be a trade-off: you give us this and we'll give you that.

Why do people feel compelled to turn this into a binary?

The system is disadvantageous to Drew and anyone else who is offered a QO. Drew and Boras appear to have misjudged the market, although we cannot yet be certain, either by rejecting the QO, rejecting later offers, or both. These are not mutually exclusive. The former addresses whether Drew's market has been suppressed by the QO. The latter addresses whether he has made the right choices given that market.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The system is disadvantageous to Drew and anyone else who is offered a QO.

It's probably not that disadvantageous to Ellsbury, Cano, etc. Maybe their offers were a bit lower, but they still got their long multi year deals.

It's primarily the players in the Drew/Cruz/Morales category who lose out. And it is owners and some other players who gain. If Peralta and not Drew had received the QO, would Drew and not Peralta have received$50 million from the Cardinals?

This just feels like a situation that should be remedied (and could be without damaging the owners' interests or those of the players.)

How about: after the first week, the qualifying offer becomes a mutual option? The player can "accept" the qualifying offer at any time, but after the first week, the team has the right to walk away and receive no compensation.

 

[Infield Infidel]

In the two years of qualifying offers, there have been 22 players offered a QO; the Red Sox and Yankees have offered 10 of them (6 NYY, 4 Sox). These are the teams that will have the players expensive enough to get qualifying offers. If teams sign players to one year deals in the hopes that they perform well enough to warrant a QO, these are the teams that will do it. You could say the same for Kuroda, who's gotten a QO two years in a row.
 
If leveling the playing field is one of the points of the QO, wouldn't limiting the number of QOs a team can offer help sub-elite players like Drew and Kuroda? 
 
How about a maximum of two QOs/team, and players can't get QOs two consecutive years? Team like the Sox and Yanks would then have to think about contracts ahead of time and stagger them so that no more than two FAs come up in a year. 

 

[smastroyin]

Koufax37- The Red Sox offering the QO is not "forgotten" it has just been beaten to absolute death in the Drew thread, and now you just had to bring a "look at me I can't help myself but regurgitate useless points" post to this thread.  I broke out this thread to try and have a discussion without that repetitive inane crap.  I mean, all that post is missing is a crappy reference to WAR or fielding statistics that you don't understand to encapsulate everything that is wrong with the forum right now.
 
I give up.

 

[MakMan44]

In the two years of qualifying offers, there have been 22 players offered a QO; the Red Sox and Yankees have offered 10 of them (6 NYY, 4 Sox). These are the teams that will have the players expensive enough to get qualifying offers. If teams sign players to one year deals in the hopes that they perform well enough to warrant a QO, these are the teams that will do it. You could say the same for Kuroda, who's gotten a QO two years in a row.
 
If leveling the playing field is one of the points of the QO, wouldn't limiting the number of QOs a team can offer help sub-elite players like Drew and Kuroda? 
 
How about a maximum of two QOs/team, and players can't get QOs two consecutive years? Team like the Sox and Yanks would then have to think about contracts ahead of time and stagger them so that no more than two FAs come up in a year. 

This interesting. It makes sense really, teams with larger payrolls can offer the QO while teams like the Pirates can't. It's why AJ Burnett did not receive a QO this year.
 
I am a fan of your "no player can get a QO two years in a row" suggestion.

 

[snowmanny]

In the two years of qualifying offers, there have been 22 players offered a QO; the Red Sox and Yankees have offered 10 of them (6 NYY, 4 Sox). These are the teams that will have the players expensive enough to get qualifying offers. If teams sign players to one year deals in the hopes that they perform well enough to warrant a QO, these are the teams that will do it. You could say the same for Kuroda, who's gotten a QO two years in a row.
 
If leveling the playing field is one of the points of the QO, wouldn't limiting the number of QOs a team can offer help sub-elite players like Drew and Kuroda? 
 
How about a maximum of two QOs/team, and players can't get QOs two consecutive years? Team like the Sox and Yanks would then have to think about contracts ahead of time and stagger them so that no more than two FAs come up in a year. 

 
The issue I have with this is that is based upon a premise that getting tagged with a Qualifying Offer is automatically a bad thing.  I do not believe that even without being hit with a QO Stephen Drew would have received an offer for 14 Million/year (even for one year).  The Red Sox were willing to make a high offer to Drew in part because of the compensation: they were willing to live with giving him a 45% raise. I never heard anyone suggest that Drew was worth more than that annually on a multiyear contract, but he turned down what was almost certainly going to be the highest offer on the table for him for 2014, one that was gift-wrapped to him by this system.
 
The solution is for players to start taking the QO's more often, plain and simple. 

 

[ivanvamp]

 
The issue I have with this is that is based upon a premise that getting tagged with a Qualifying Offer is automatically a bad thing.  I do not believe that even without being hit with a QO Stephen Drew would have received an offer for 14 Million/year (even for one year).  The Red Sox were willing to make a high offer to Drew in part because of the compensation: they were willing to live with giving him a 45% raise. I never heard anyone suggest that Drew was worth more than that annually on a multiyear contract, but he turned down what was almost certainly going to be the highest offer on the table for him for 2014, one that was gift-wrapped to him by this system.
 
The solution is for players to start taking the QO's more often, plain and simple. 

 
Agreed.  I mean, I know guys would like a longer-term contract, but what's wrong with 1 year, $14 million smackeroos?  That's pretty good money.  And if a guy plays well, he can always revisit free agency the following year.  

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

 
 
If leveling the playing field is one of the points of the QO, wouldn't limiting the number of QOs a team can offer help sub-elite players like Drew and Kuroda? 

I mean, what's painfully obvious about this whole conversation is that leveling the playing field is clearly not one of the points of the QO.
 
The point of the QO was to replace the ancien regime of free agent compensation. The point of the free agent compensation system was to punish baseball teams who offered big contracts to free agents. The point of that was to preserve as much as possible of the reserve clause system without provoking a major fight with the players union, once the players union had established itself as powerful enough to screw things up for the owners. The good of the game has never been part of the purpose of these systems and the systems have never been set up with an eye towards anything other than the negotiating leverage and priorities of the two main interest groups involved. It's turtles all the way down. 
 
If we're talking about what should be, what should happen is that the entire complicated system should be eliminated and players should be allowed to sign whatever contracts they want, of whatever length they want, with whoever will sign those contracts. The players who are especially screwed over, of course, are the Trouts of the world, not the Drews, who have to play for whatever their team is willing to pay them until they have accumulated the service time that the MLBPA has established as the minimum necessary before the MLBPA is willing to fight for their rights as players. And especially the Trouts of the world who get injured while still playing in their slave years and never collect that big paycheck. Of course, Drew has a legit grievance as well. 

 

[Saints Rest]

This may appear to be slightly OT, but bear with me: Why does MLB not allow for draft picks to be traded?  It is the only sport that I know of with that prohibition.  And why does MLB not allow for sign-and-trades?

Connection to this thread:  In a world where draft picks could be traded and sign-and-trades allowed, wouldn't the QO system work more like the Transition or Franchise tag in the NFL?  Boston offers the QO, Drew turns it down, but now a team like the Cardinals could offer a trade where they trade their 1st round pick (the one they would normally give up to Boston for a signed Drew plus some pick going back to STL to offset the loss of the 1st round pick.
 
I'm sure there are complicated reasons, and maybe trading draft picks wouldn't solve the alleged unfairness of the QO system (especially when you consider how much players in the NFL seem to hate the franchise tag system), but I still don't understand why Team X can't trade a player to Team Y for future draft picks.

 

[zenter]

 
Agreed.  I mean, I know guys would like a longer-term contract, but what's wrong with 1 year, $14 million smackeroos?  That's pretty good money.  And if a guy plays well, he can always revisit free agency the following year.  

 
If I'm Drew, there are 2 risks.
 
1) If I play poorly or get injured, I won't get another 3+ year contract in my career because I'm just old enough that people aren't willing to risk much money in the future, thus lowering my ability to maximize my current value.
2) If I play really well, I could be locked into QO hell, where I cannot escape my team and be a free agent even if I wanted to... Which lower my ability to maximize my value going forward.
 
Essentially, the QO short-circuits a player like Drew's ability to access the free agent market and get fair-market value.

 

[LeoCarrillo]

 
Agreed.  I mean, I know guys would like a longer-term contract, but what's wrong with 1 year, $14 million smackeroos?  That's pretty good money.  And if a guy plays well, he can always revisit free agency the following year.  

 
Overall, I agree with this because Drew is a youngish guy, but I've been waiting for big-$$ teams to start using this to their advantage to take older guys QO hostage. For example, Peavy. QO this guy after let's say a typical Peavy 2.0 sub-elite season in 2014, and nobody's gonna give up a pick for him, a No. 3 starter type. 
 
Not saying it's a tragedy. Sox can afford whatever next year's QO is, say $14.4M, for the luxury of a one-year short buy on Peavy. He's probably not unhappy taking it. But for a pitcher who's creeping up on mid-30s, the QO may shackle them from going out and getting that last two- or three-year deal for maybe $30M-$35m guaranteed. Now they're playing one year at a time for $14M+ish, and maybe their arm falls off.
 
It's advantageous for moneyed and smart teams such as the Sox, so I like the strategy to be honest.

 

[Reverend]

 
If I'm Drew, there are 2 risks.
 
1) If I play poorly or get injured, I won't get another 3+ year contract in my career because I'm just old enough that people aren't willing to risk much money in the future, thus lowering my ability to maximize my current value.
2) If I play really well, I could be locked into QO hell, where I cannot escape my team and be a free agent even if I wanted to... Which lower my ability to maximize my value going forward.
 
Essentially, the QO short-circuits a player like Drew's ability to access the free agent market and get fair-market value.

 
To say nothing of the fact that people value stability. Many of these guys have kids too; I think it's kinda weird, if somewhat understandable, how often we assess player decision making only in terms of dollars to the point that we forget they're people.
 
In the football world, noted maniac Greg Schiano is going to leave millions of additional dollars (He's still being paid from his last gig.) to take a year off from coaching because he doesn't want to uproot his family again. This should give us pause; I'm no Schiano fan, but good on him for this.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
If I'm Drew, there are 2 risks.
 
1) If I play poorly or get injured, I won't get another 3+ year contract in my career because I'm just old enough that people aren't willing to risk much money in the future, thus lowering my ability to maximize my current value.
2) If I play really well, I could be locked into QO hell, where I cannot escape my team and be a free agent even if I wanted to... Which lower my ability to maximize my value going forward.
 
Essentially, the QO short-circuits a player like Drew's ability to access the free agent market and get fair-market value.

 
Perhaps the solution to risk #2 is something akin to the franchise tag in the NFL.  Teams tag a player once, and they must pay him the average of the top X number of players at his position.  Tag him again and the salary escalates to the top X number of players in the league, which could result in a salary well above that of any other player at his position.
 
QO a player once and pay him the average of the top 125 salaries, as it is now.  QO him again and the salary escalate to the average of the top 50 contracts or something to that effect.  A Stephen Drew type for one year at 14-15 million is one thing.  A Stephen Drew type for one year at 18-20+ million...probably tips the scales away from making the offer.

 

[Rovin Romine]

I mean, what's painfully obvious about this whole conversation is that leveling the playing field is clearly not one of the points of the QO.
 
The point of the QO was to replace the ancien regime of free agent compensation. The point of the free agent compensation system was to punish baseball teams who offered big contracts to free agents. The point of that was to preserve as much as possible of the reserve clause system without provoking a major fight with the players union, once the players union had established itself as powerful enough to screw things up for the owners. The good of the game has never been part of the purpose of these systems and the systems have never been set up with an eye towards anything other than the negotiating leverage and priorities of the two main interest groups involved. It's turtles all the way down. 
 
If we're talking about what should be, what should happen is that the entire complicated system should be eliminated and players should be allowed to sign whatever contracts they want, of whatever length they want, with whoever will sign those contracts. The players who are especially screwed over, of course, are the Trouts of the world, not the Drews, who have to play for whatever their team is willing to pay them until they have accumulated the service time that the MLBPA has established as the minimum necessary before the MLBPA is willing to fight for their rights as players. And especially the Trouts of the world who get injured while still playing in their slave years and never collect that big paycheck. Of course, Drew has a legit grievance as well. 

 
The old FA compensation system also provided some relief for smaller budget teams - otherwise you'd have a system whereby the FAs would congregate in a few clubs (the ones with the highest budget).  
 
It seems the QO is also designed to address this.  Smaller budget teams can offer one of their impending FAs a QO - if the FA takes it, they stay, play for the original team, and get well compensated for it.  If the FA leaves, the original team gets compensation.   
 
IIRC, under the old system, teams like the Yanks could just let a decent FA go (pocket the draft pick) and sign a premium FA (losing the extra draft pick).  Now, you have to offer the QO (and risk having it accepted) before you get that draft pick.  
 
***
In terms of Drew, it seems like he's right on the edge of the bubble.  If he was better, he'd have been snapped up in FA.  If he was worse, there wouldn't be a QO on the table (unless the team made a mistake, in which case Drew should have said "thank you" and accept the QO).  
 
Ultimately, it's on Drew to choose between 14 mil and the more uncertain reward of hitting the FA market.   A player's failure in this shouldn't be construed as a failure on the part of the compensation system.  

 

[ivanvamp]

 
If I'm Drew, there are 2 risks.
 
1) If I play poorly or get injured, I won't get another 3+ year contract in my career because I'm just old enough that people aren't willing to risk much money in the future, thus lowering my ability to maximize my current value.
2) If I play really well, I could be locked into QO hell, where I cannot escape my team and be a free agent even if I wanted to... Which lower my ability to maximize my value going forward.
 
Essentially, the QO short-circuits a player like Drew's ability to access the free agent market and get fair-market value.

 
I don't understand QO hell.  He would forever be making really good money if every year he accepted a QO.  

 

[koufax37]

Koufax37- The Red Sox offering the QO is not "forgotten" it has just been beaten to absolute death in the Drew thread, and now you just had to bring a "look at me I can't help myself but regurgitate useless points" post to this thread.  I broke out this thread to try and have a discussion without that repetitive inane crap.  I mean, all that post is missing is a crappy reference to WAR or fielding statistics that you don't understand to encapsulate everything that is wrong with the forum right now.
 
I give up.

 
 
My point wasn't that they offered it to him, but that they likely did in error or daring game theory risk, and that their MISTAKE contributed to the market inefficiency here.
 
If everybody has been talking about it forever, fine, but my argument isn't on Drew's worth, but that multiple bad choices have created a temporary situation that isn't inherent to the QO/CBA system, and players and teams will both likely correct these errors soon causing the system to find its equilibrium, and those that don't will be exploited.
 
Extending a QO to a QO worthy player like Ellsbury or Cano is a contract drag that clearly has some minor effect, but doesn't break the legs of a huge cash in for these stars who it is intended for.  And my second point is that when a QO is extended to a player who really shouldn't get one, this is an error that the player needs to capitalize on.
 
We are in a moment of transition of understanding of the system, and that has lead to bad decisions made.  Teams have taken gambles on offers to some players that they don't value that high (Nelson Cruz, Kendry Morales, Stephen Drew) on the expectation that they will turn it down, and so far those risks have paid off since players have turned them down. Whether teams move first next October by reading the tea leaves ahead of time and stopping the unreasonable QOs, or players have to move first to make them backfire on teams remains to be seen.
 
But Morales, Drew, Cruz made mistakes reading the draft pick attached market and are not QO caliber players.  All three teams skated through luckily by not having their bluff called.
 
So I don't agree with at all the franchise tag comparisons.  Since people are bored with the Drew talk, I will change my terms to Cruz, because I am speaking generally about the system, and not analyzing our 2013 shortstop's value.  When Cruz got his offer, he should have taken it reading the market better.  By not taking it he cost himself $6m this year, but he also strengthened the management tendency of the moment to overvalue draft picks and extend QOs they hope are turned down.

 

[MakMan44]

You think too little of their respective FOs. I'm assuming both the Rangers and Mariners were very willing to take both players back and we know for a fact that the Red Sox were. If they weren't they wouldn't have extended him one, just like they did in Salty's case. There's no way a FO didn't plan for the possibility of having it's QO accepted and to think otherwise is silly. 

 

[zenter]

I don't understand QO hell.  He would forever be making really good money if every year he accepted a QO.  

 
Drew wants something like a 4/56-6/75 realm right now for the remainder of his career.
 
1) Takes 2014 QO (14.1M): If he's a 15M/year player in 2014, it's likely he's offered a QO, right? Will he be able to parlay that performance into a longer-term deal? No, because QO makes him too expensive to risk.
 
2) Takes 2015 QO (15M): Let's say he plays at a 14M level. Will any team risk giving up a draft pick for a deal on a guy who plays at/near QO level for 3 consecutive years? No. Will a team that has him risk losing a QO-level player without getting anything in return? No. Teams thus have ample incentives to offer QO. So he takes QO again.
 
3) Takes 2016 QO (16M): He gets injured season-endingly. He doesn't get a QO afterward; instead one of those "injured-guy-incentive-laden deals" (2M+ risers) from another team in addition to a few camp invites.
 
Instead of a guaranteed 5/65 (for example) he gets 4/48(+) because of QO hell. And he also has no stability, as Rev notes. Now maybe, for the game of baseball, it is good that above-average players aren't overpaid. But we're paying to see talent. And it's not good for the talent to sacrifice their own market value for a few billionaires to save a few bucks. A downstream effect is that this also would drag down lower-tier salaries. Since (as has been noted upthread) the CBA is really there in most sports to protect non-superstars, we see the QO short-circuits the CBA's intended value to all players except superstars.
 
Surely the union will want to renegotiate this QO rule for the next CBA.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
My point wasn't that they offered it to him, but that they likely did in error or daring game theory risk, and that their MISTAKE contributed to the market inefficiency here.
 
If everybody has been talking about it forever, fine, but my argument isn't on Drew's worth, but that multiple bad choices have created a temporary situation that isn't inherent to the QO/CBA system, and players and teams will both likely correct these errors soon causing the system to find its equilibrium, and those that don't will be exploited.
 
Extending a QO to a QO worthy player like Ellsbury or Cano is a contract drag that clearly has some minor effect, but doesn't break the legs of a huge cash in for these stars who it is intended for.  And my second point is that when a QO is extended to a player who really shouldn't get one, this is an error that the player needs to capitalize on.
 
We are in a moment of transition of understanding of the system, and that has lead to bad decisions made.  Teams have taken gambles on offers to some players that they don't value that high (Nelson Cruz, Kendry Morales, Stephen Drew) on the expectation that they will turn it down, and so far those risks have paid off since players have turned them down. Whether teams move first next October by reading the tea leaves ahead of time and stopping the unreasonable QOs, or players have to move first to make them backfire on teams remains to be seen.
 
But Morales, Drew, Cruz made mistakes reading the draft pick attached market and are not QO caliber players.  All three teams skated through luckily by not having their bluff called.
 
So I don't agree with at all the franchise tag comparisons.  Since people are bored with the Drew talk, I will change my terms to Cruz, because I am speaking generally about the system, and not analyzing our 2013 shortstop's value.  When Cruz got his offer, he should have taken it reading the market better.  By not taking it he cost himself $6m this year, but he also strengthened the management tendency of the moment to overvalue draft picks and extend QOs they hope are turned down.

 

 
I do not agree that teams misread the market---they have lost nothing right now, and game theory-wise they are more focused on the player's decision making process than the actual market.  You'd have to acknowledge all three teams perfectly read the player's decision making process, so I am puzzled how you reach your conclusion
 
Second, we do not know that any of the teams would have been unhappy to have their bluff called.  There's a whole crappy thread here discussing whether the Sox feel that way; suffice to say there are different views.  Especially for the Royals, who would seem interested in a short-term deal, I do not agree they would regret having it called.  

 

[CSteinhardt]

This interesting. It makes sense really, teams with larger payrolls can offer the QO while teams like the Pirates can't. It's why AJ Burnett did not receive a QO this year.
 
I am a fan of your "no player can get a QO two years in a row" suggestion.

 
That would depress the market further.  Currently, a team signing Drew loses a pick but expects to get one back if he won't accept the QO next year, so if you've already lost enough picks, you get to trade, say, a 3rd rounder this year for a sandwich pick the next year -- that's really adding value, not subtracting it.
 
More to the point, if agents use it properly, the QO shouldn't be a major impediment.  Let's say that front offices value that first round pick as $5M, which seems in the right ballpark.  So, essentially the point is that every single player in the game has a $14M team option, which if exercised the player can pay $5M to decline.  It's not more than that.  If Drew would have gotten 3/$40M on the open market without the compensation, surely he'd be getting offers better than 3/$30M this offseason, and probably around 3/$35M.  The reason he isn't getting offered that is because front offices wouldn't have given him the 3/40 deal in the first place.
 
The players for whom the QO presents a problem are those who can't get a long-term deal with an AAV higher than the QO.  For them, they have a choice -- be overpaid for one year or pay $5M to get a smaller, long-term deal.  I can understand pitchers generally opting for the latter, but it's surprising to me that position players aren't more willing to take the former, especially because next year, it's much easier to convince the Sox that there's a real risk Drew takes the qualifying offer again than it is to convince a new team that he might accept it the second time around.
 
And, having said all that, I suspect he'll sign a multi-year deal for about $5M less than market value at some point in the next few weeks.

 

[koufax37]

 
I do not agree that teams misread the market---they have lost nothing right now, and game theory-wise they are more focused on the player's decision making process than the actual market.  You'd have to acknowledge all three teams perfectly read the player's decision making process, so I am puzzled how you reach your conclusion
 
Second, we do not know that any of the teams would have been unhappy to have their bluff called.  There's a whole crappy thread here discussing whether the Sox feel that way; suffice to say there are different views.  Especially for the Royals, who would seem interested in a short-term deal, I do not agree they would regret having it called.  

 
 
The fact that they lost nothing in practice mean they won their gamble in all three of the cases where QO seems silly.  If they had reason to expect the decline as reasonably probable maybe that was a risk worth taking and a calculated risk, but I don't think the Red Sox, Mariners, or Rangers happily have 1/14 on the table right now as a reasonable salary for the players, and I think it is pretty likely each would accept the QO if they had it to do over.
 
Maybe I overstated those three QOs as being "mistakes" and maybe each was made with an understanding of limited downside (we like Drew at 1/10, so we are gambling that he won't accept QO putting our $4m against a compensation pick), and maybe each of those three teams had good cause to think that greed/hopes would lead to the QO being declined.  But I tend to feel that each of those teams lucked out because each of those players should have accepted and if they did the teams would be worse off as a result.  Anticipating a foolish action by your opponent is a risky move, but one that makes you look smart if it pays off, and in all three cases here it paid off.  I just think that by next off season and adjustment will be made, and a Cruz would accept the QO, and in anticipation of that maybe the Rangers wouldn't extend one.  Whether players or teams adjust first, whoever does will avoid being left with the negative outcome of getting stuck.
 
But if Drew gets a soft landing with the Mets, maybe players will overlook Cruz and continue the cycle of optimistic QO declines into another winter.  But I think the end is getting nearer, and teams will have to be careful on getting stuck with a player contract they don't want on the gamble of getting a draft pick.  And if teams correctly anticipate players like Cruz accepting offers next year and react by offering fewer of them, this problem goes away and the market settles on an equilibrium without this being as heated a topic as it proved to be this year.

 

[Wake's knuckle]

Hmm... idea: what if the pick the signing team lost decreased during the off-season? Someone with a QO that a team signs before the new year would cost a first round pick... then in jan/feb a second and march a 3rd. Or whatever. Something for the player and something for the teams.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Hmm... idea: what if the pick the signing team lost decreased during the off-season? Someone with a QO that a team signs before the new year would cost a first round pick... then in jan/feb a second and march a 3rd. Or whatever. Something for the player and something for the teams.

 
Wouldn't that just lead to teams waiting as late as they can into the off-season to sign players?  I mean, even for a player that a team otherwise wouldn't hesitate to give up a first rounder to sign, if they can save the first rounder, why wouldn't they hold off until the cost drops?

 

[mauf]

I mean, what's painfully obvious about this whole conversation is that leveling the playing field is clearly not one of the points of the QO.

The point of the QO was to replace the ancien regime of free agent compensation. The point of the free agent compensation system was to punish baseball teams who offered big contracts to free agents. The point of that was to preserve as much as possible of the reserve clause system without provoking a major fight with the players union, once the players union had established itself as powerful enough to screw things up for the owners. The good of the game has never been part of the purpose of these systems and the systems have never been set up with an eye towards anything other than the negotiating leverage and priorities of the two main interest groups involved. It's turtles all the way down.

If we're talking about what should be, what should happen is that the entire complicated system should be eliminated and players should be allowed to sign whatever contracts they want, of whatever length they want, with whoever will sign those contracts. The players who are especially screwed over, of course, are the Trouts of the world, not the Drews, who have to play for whatever their team is willing to pay them until they have accumulated the service time that the MLBPA has established as the minimum necessary before the MLBPA is willing to fight for their rights as players. And especially the Trouts of the world who get injured while still playing in their slave years and never collect that big paycheck. Of course, Drew has a legit grievance as well.

What's missing here is a recognition that this problem, to the extent it is one, is at least as much the creation of the MLBPA as it is of the owners. In any of the last two or three collective-bargaining agreements, the union could have gotten rid of draft pick compensation forever, if they had only asked for that at the bargaining table (and a lot of people who didn't understand the dynamics predicted that would happen). The union didn't ask for that, however, because they like having a say in how the owners conduct the amateur draft. And the owners aren't going to continue to give them that say without getting something meaningful in return.

 

[nvalvo]

What's missing here is a recognition that this problem, to the extent it is one, is at least as much the creation of the MLBPA as it is of the owners. In any of the last two or three collective-bargaining agreements, the union could have gotten rid of draft pick compensation forever, if they had only asked for that at the bargaining table (and a lot of people who didn't understand the dynamics predicted that would happen). The union didn't ask for that, however, because they like having a say in how the owners conduct the amateur draft. And the owners aren't going to continue to give them that say without getting something meaningful in return.

 
I can't tell if you mean to imply the opposite, but the conduct of the amateur draft seems like a legitimate object of concern for the MLBPA, no? 

 

[mauf]

I can't tell if you mean to imply the opposite, but the conduct of the amateur draft seems like a legitimate object of concern for the MLBPA, no?

It is, but they aren't entitled to any say in how it is run, unless it affects their membership. Draft pick compensation gives them the hook they need; take that away, and the owners can run the amateur draft however they want. The MLBPA wants that hook badly enough to accept a few guys each year getting the short end of the stick in the arb/QO process.

 

[YTF]

The guy got offered $14 Million for the upcoming season and turned it down. Who screwed him? Yeah I get the argument that the system may not be working out as well as some may have hoped. I get that he'd like a longer term deal, but the man was offered slightly more than David Ortiz made last season as well as a million more than Mike Napoli made. It's also nearly a 50% raise over last year's $9.5 mil salary. This CBA was constructed in part and agreed to by the most powerful union in sports. Team Boras gambled with Drew's future. He turned down $14 million to be the starting shortstop for the defending World Series Champions. He and his agent may have overestimated his value and in retrospect may have made a poor choice, but the guy didn't get screwed. He was about to get handsomely rewarded.

 

[OCD SS]

 
I can't tell if you mean to imply the opposite, but the conduct of the amateur draft seems like a legitimate object of concern for the MLBPA, no? 

 
Not really. The MLBPA represents major leaguers; the minor leagues are totally under the purview of the owners (hence roid testing being implemented unilaterally earlier in the minors). The MLBPA has a sort of fox guarding the henhouse history of accepting limits to spending on minor leaguers that will then direct the money towards their Major League membership.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

It's pretty remarkable to me that people on this board are really that concerned about the 22 players that have been through the QO process.  I mean Drew and Boras knew the rules; they made a calculated decision; and where they are currently was pretty easy to foresee.  Maybe Drew is getting screwed - or maybe he knows exactly what he is going to chose but is hoping for something to happen (injury?) to maybe leverage a better offer.  But one way or the other, he's going to make a bunch of money to play baseball next year.
 
But despite the fact that the vast majority of the 22 QO players have gotten pretty decent contracts, we are trying to fix it?
 
Why don't we try to fix other things that cost the owners money - like guaranteed contracts?  Paying players who can't perform cost the owners - and the fans - way more money than QOs will ever cost the players.

 

[ALiveH]

 
Mike Trout is one of the 50 best players in the game, and he is "screwed" by the CBA because he is in the indentured servant period of his MLB career.
 
Of course, he would have been screwed by the previous CBA, and even more screwed by the reserve clause.
 
I don't see what's so controversial about saying that the QO has messed up Drew's market. Yes, he turned down an offer hoping for a better one. If not for the draft pick attached to the QO, he'd very likely have a better one.

 
Well, since it's not a perfectly free market system, at any given time half the players are underpaid (for various reasons including early years of control) and half are overpaid.  So, at any given time half the players in the league are getting "screwed."
 
It's not controversial at all.  It is just completely obvious.  Another obvious observations - we're talking about multi multi-millionaires who are supposedly getting screwed by making slightly fewer millions.
 
Of course in Drew's particular case he is not a top-50 player in the league, he turned down an offer to be paid like one, and I'd contend the fact that a team isn't willing to pay him even more than that does not constitute a screwing.  If he were smart he would've signed after opening day so he wouldn't be eligible for the QO.
 
The guys who really do get screwed are the ones who are superstars in their young years under team control, then have a career-altering injury and never get paid out their true value over the course of their careers (like if Trout got hit by a bus tomorrow).

 

[Sampo Gida]

It is, but they aren't entitled to any say in how it is run, unless it affects their membership. Draft pick compensation gives them the hook they need; take that away, and the owners can run the amateur draft however they want. The MLBPA wants that hook badly enough to accept a few guys each year getting the short end of the stick in the arb/QO process.

 
Not sure I fully understand this.  What do they want with the hook that they would allow certain players to receive tens of millions in guaranteed salary each year just to have it?   Are they afraid MLB owners would allow more money to go toward draft picks?  I don't think MLB needs MLBPA to reign in spending there given their monopoly and the lack of a minor league union gives them the power to do pretty much anything they want.  It not like MLB can screw minor leaguers any more than they are now, or that they would inflate their salaries and benefits without the MLBPA.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
The fact that they lost nothing in practice mean they won their gamble in all three of the cases where QO seems silly.  If they had reason to expect the decline as reasonably probable maybe that was a risk worth taking and a calculated risk, but I don't think the Red Sox, Mariners, or Rangers happily have 1/14 on the table right now as a reasonable salary for the players, and I think it is pretty likely each would accept the QO if they had it to do over.

 
No, the fact that the teams won their gamble is a fact, it is not silly.  You have, literally, zero basis (not even an argument, much less a coherent and credible argument backed by data as one would hope for on this board) that the teams did not want the players on those contracts.   In point of fact they offered it and that is powerful evidence they were willing to pay it.  You have a theory, one that appears contrary to the facts, and keep repeating it as if it is real...I'm not seeing it.

 

 
Maybe I overstated those three QOs as being "mistakes" and maybe each was made with an understanding of limited downside (we like Drew at 1/10, so we are gambling that he won't accept QO putting our $4m against a compensation pick), and maybe each of those three teams had good cause to think that greed/hopes would lead to the QO being declined.  But I tend to feel that each of those teams lucked out because each of those players should have accepted and if they did the teams would be worse off as a result.  Anticipating a foolish action by your opponent is a risky move, but one that makes you look smart if it pays off, and in all three cases here it paid off.  I just think that by next off season and adjustment will be made, and a Cruz would accept the QO, and in anticipation of that maybe the Rangers wouldn't extend one.  Whether players or teams adjust first, whoever does will avoid being left with the negative outcome of getting stuck.
 
But if Drew gets a soft landing with the Mets, maybe players will overlook Cruz and continue the cycle of optimistic QO declines into another winter.  But I think the end is getting nearer, and teams will have to be careful on getting stuck with a player contract they don't want on the gamble of getting a draft pick.  And if teams correctly anticipate players like Cruz accepting offers next year and react by offering fewer of them, this problem goes away and the market settles on an equilibrium without this being as heated a topic as it proved to be this year.
 

 
It's not that you overstated them as mistakes, it is that you do not seem to understand the process or the team's reasoning at all---you are assuming perfect knowledge then of what would happen in FA, and that simply isn't realistic.   I also don't understand the numbers you have included--why is Drew worth 1/$10 and not 1/$14?  Why would a comp pick be worth $4 mil?   
 
I do not think teams are approaching this in anywhere near as unstructured a manner as you describe, and I don't think the agents are either.

 

[koufax37]

 
No, the fact that the teams won their gamble is a fact, it is not silly.  You have, literally, zero basis (not even an argument, much less a coherent and credible argument backed by data as one would hope for on this board) that the teams did not want the players on those contracts.   In point of fact they offered it and that is powerful evidence they were willing to pay it.  You have a theory, one that appears contrary to the facts, and keep repeating it as if it is real...I'm not seeing it.

 

 
It's not that you overstated them as mistakes, it is that you do not seem to understand the process or the team's reasoning at all---you are assuming perfect knowledge then of what would happen in FA, and that simply isn't realistic.   I also don't understand the numbers you have included--why is Drew worth 1/$10 and not 1/$14?  Why would a comp pick be worth $4 mil?   
 
I do not think teams are approaching this in anywhere near as unstructured a manner as you describe, and I don't think the agents are either.

 
The word silly I used as an adjective to describe qualifying offers that teams would have been less happy if they were accepted, not to describe their winning of the gambles on said offers.
 
I don't think any of the three teams in question would have been happier with their player accepting the offer.  I don't think their choices were haphazard or without thought, but I think each of the three thought the player was close enough to 1/14 to warrant taking the chance they accept to gamble for the chance at a valued compensatory pick.  But in the end I would expect each team happy with their player's decline, and happy that their gamble paid off.
 
You seem to indicate that the gamble of a chance to get a pick was not a factor, and each of the teams would have been even happier if the player accepted.  I speculate to the contrary, and each of the three value the player at less than 1/14, and would have been less inclined to take that gamble if they thought the player was very likely to accept.  The Red Sox wouldn't have offered Drew 1/14 if they weren't happy to have him on the roster, but I think that would have been an overpay given the value and current roster composition.  Not a gut wrenching franchise ruining overpay, but I don't think the Red Sox would have offered a QO if it weren't for the chance at winning a draft pick and wouldn't think that offer made sense to the franchise in a vacuum.  It isn't that they weren't willing to pay it, but I think they would prefer not to, and put it as a calculated gamble that it will be declined.
 
My 1/10 is my very rough estimate of Drew's fair value on a one year contract.  This isn't the thread for Drew's value, but I was implying a 1.8 WAR projected player when you have cost controlled alternatives who will likely outperform him is not worth more than you have been paying David Ortiz.  I think it is very likely that the Red Sox FO shared this value and liked Stephen Drew enough to take the gamble he accepted, but were happy to hear he did not.
 
Of course in your eyes I still have zero basis and not even an argument for that view.  And that instead of a calculated risk in pursuit of a draft pick and an expectation of player greed / desire for multi-year security, each team was saying "aw shucks Nelson, why don't you come back and play right field for us for $14.1 million".  In doing so I think you are missing part of the game theory that is going on here, and how it will change in the coming year if expectation that marginal QO candidates might be more likely to accept offers.

 

[Sampo Gida]

There are a number of considerations that go into determining which players to offer a QO.
 
This article covers the basics pretty well.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/what-is-a-compensation-pick-worth/
 
I also agree that the calculus will probably be somewhat different next year, with the odds that a player accepts a QO being higher.  Certainly not elite free agents, but anyone on the wrong side of 30 who has had a bit of inconsistency over the previous 3 years due to injury or what not, and with a sub 4 WAR is going to think harder about accepting it.  Might be fewer of them get a QO to consider though.
 
But like someone said above, the jury is still out on some of these guys.  Cruz was the only one confirmed to be better off taking the QO at this point.  Jiminez did pretty well so long as you accept that players are pretty ok with accepting a lower AAV for years and security.  If they do pretty well at the end of the day then perhaps the calculus won't change as much, but I am skeptical at this point that they will.

 

[Wake's knuckle]

 
Wouldn't that just lead to teams waiting as late as they can into the off-season to sign players?  I mean, even for a player that a team otherwise wouldn't hesitate to give up a first rounder to sign, if they can save the first rounder, why wouldn't they hold off until the cost drops?

 
Not really. I mean, all it takes it one team thinking he's worth losing a 1st round pick.

 

[lexrageorge]

In just about any CBA scenario, you will have winners and losers.  Drew lost, but a good part of that was self-inflicted:  he could have accepted the QO, or he likely could have signed for less money or few years than Boring Ass was demanding.  Instead, his agent misjudged the market and set a price that was too high, and now Drew has little leverage on the open market.  As others have noted, Mike Trout is a bigger loser in this whole system; Josh Hamilton and Albert Pujols and Prince Fielder are winners in the current system. 
 
There's no reason to tweak anything just because Stephen Drew misjudged the market. 

 

[zenter]

There's no reason to tweak anything just because Stephen Drew misjudged the market. 

If Stephen Drew wants stability for at least a few years at market value, what does his judgment have to do with it?

Teams won't offer a reasonably-market-value deal because he comes with a CBA-driven poison pill. The team that makes the QO holds the cards despite the fact that he's technically a free agent. MLB is (accidentally?) inching back towards the reserve clause here, but only for above-average non superstars.

Under the previous regime, the sandwich pick compensation had low enough value that a player could still command something close to fair market value while also being able to exercise the leverage due a free agent. Taking a QO could very well be penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

In just about any CBA scenario, you will have winners and losers.  Drew lost, but a good part of that was self-inflicted:  he could have accepted the QO, or he likely could have signed for less money or few years than Boring Ass was demanding.  

 
Or, he could have taken a few million less last year and negotiated in a clause that prevented the Sox from offering him the QO, which hopefully Cruz did with the Orioles (or else he really should get a new agent).
 
edit:  updated for correct information; thanks RSF. 

 

[MakMan44]

If Stephen Drew wants stability for at least a few years at market value, what does his judgment have to do with it?

Teams won't offer a reasonably-market-value deal because he comes with a CBA-driven poison pill. The team that makes the QO holds the cards despite the fact that he's technically a free agent. MLB is (accidentally?) inching back towards the reserve clause here, but only for above-average non superstars.

Under the previous regime, the sandwich pick compensation had low enough value that a player could still command something close to fair market value while also being able to exercise the leverage due a free agent. Taking a QO could very well be penny wise and pound foolish.

How can you say this with any certainty? Heyman reported that the Mets offered him a deal with an AAV around what he made last year. Depending on the years, I'd call that a market value deal.

 

[JimD]

 
Drew wants something like a 4/56-6/75 realm right now for the remainder of his career.
 

 
Is it realistic to assume that Stephen Drew would have gotten a four or five year contract this winter even if a QO wasn't attached?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
Or, he could have taken a few million less last year and negotiated in a clause that prevented the Sox from offering him the QO, which hopefully Cruz did with the Orioles (or else he really should get a new agent).

Pretty sure clauses like that are not allowed under the CBA.

 

[MakMan44]

Pretty sure clauses like that are not allowed under the CBA.

Was that changed? It was allowed in the old one
 
Yes, it was changed.

 

[zenter]

How can you say this with any certainty? Heyman reported that the Mets offered him a deal with an AAV around what he made last year. Depending on the years, I'd call that a market value deal.

 
Say what with certainty? It's obvious that QO limits his ability to freely negotiate with all teams - compensation is a poison pill. Whether what the Mets offered is market value or not is impossible to tell since the QO distorts his value the market. And from Drew's perspective, signing a deal that prevents this situation next year shouldn't come with a ~5M reduction in pay because he was good enough to be offered a QO.
 

Is it realistic to assume that Stephen Drew would have gotten a four or five year contract this winter even if a QO wasn't attached?

 
Once again, it's really hard to say since the QO distorts his market value.

 

[PrometheusWakefield]

It's pretty remarkable to me that people on this board are really that concerned about the 22 players that have been through the QO process.  I mean Drew and Boras knew the rules; they made a calculated decision; and where they are currently was pretty easy to foresee.  Maybe Drew is getting screwed - or maybe he knows exactly what he is going to chose but is hoping for something to happen (injury?) to maybe leverage a better offer.  But one way or the other, he's going to make a bunch of money to play baseball next year.
 
But despite the fact that the vast majority of the 22 QO players have gotten pretty decent contracts, we are trying to fix it?
 
Why don't we try to fix other things that cost the owners money - like guaranteed contracts?  Paying players who can't perform cost the owners - and the fans - way more money than QOs will ever cost the players.

Wait what?  We're complaining that Drew is getting screwed by a system designed to give him less money than he would otherwise deserve and you want to change the subject to how we can create a system to screw players over even worse? Uh, no. 
 
It's not the fans money. If players made less then the teams would charge you the same amount for a hot dog as before, they'd just pocket more of the money. 

 

[MakMan44]

 
Say what with certainty? It's obvious that QO limits his ability to freely negotiate with all teams - compensation is a poison pill. Whether what the Mets offered is market value or not is impossible to tell since the QO distorts his value the market. And from Drew's perspective, signing a deal that prevents this situation next year shouldn't come with a ~5M reduction in pay because he was good enough to be offered a QO.
 
 
Once again, it's really hard to say since the QO distorts his market value.

I won't argue that the QO offer hurt his market, but I don't see why we can't argue to what degree.
 
Peralta only got ~$13 million and 4 years and I don't see Drew as being any better than him. Drew isn't worth 14 million per season, no matter how Boras wants to spin it.   What do you think he would have gotten per season if he didn't have the QO attached to him?
 
EDIT: Drew (and this is about him specifically) major problem is that he didn't have a big market to begin with. If you look at him as a SS only (as he only recently agreed to play other positions) only the Cardinals and Mets had the money and position open. The more I think about it, the more I think that Drew and Boras misplayed this horribly, which is not to take away from the QO's impact on FA. 

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Wait what?  We're complaining that Drew is getting screwed by a system designed to give him less money than he would otherwise deserve and you want to change the subject to how we can create a system to screw players over even worse? Uh, no. 
 
It's not the fans money. If players made less then the teams would charge you the same amount for a hot dog as before, they'd just pocket more of the money. 

 
I personally don't care whether the QO system screws a few players since it was collectively bargained for and part and parcel of a package that compensates the universe of MLB baseball players pretty well.  The QO gives the team I root for - at least the way they are presently run - a very slight competitive balance. 
 
In fact, I don't really understand the outrage over the QO.  It is what it is.

 

[zenter]

I won't argue that the QO offer hurt his market, but I don't see why we can't argue to what degree.
 
Peralta only got ~$13 million and 4 years and I don't see Drew as being any better than him. Drew isn't worth 14 million per season, no matter how Boras wants to spin it.   What do you think he would have gotten per season if he didn't have the QO attached to him?

 
I can't meaningfully argue the degree because I'm basically pulling a number out of thin air. Drew is asking for something like 4/56, right? Maybe his actual value is lower, and the Peralta comp is useful, but he's a year older and now has the PED tag attached to him.
 
Sans QO, I suspect Drew would have been able to field a few 3-4 year offers. With the QO, basically nobody is competing for his services. Sans QO, I'd expect offers in the 11-13M AAV range, and then see him take a 4/48ish deal. With the QO, nobody is at 10M AAV, right?
 
But, like I said, the speculative number is being pulled from thin air - we don't know value because the QO distorted things.
 

 
I personally don't care whether the QO system screws a few players since it was collectively bargained for and part and parcel of a package that compensates the universe of MLB baseball players pretty well.  The QO gives the team I root for - at least the way they are presently run - a very slight competitive balance. 
 
In fact, I don't really understand the outrage over the QO.  It is what it is.

 
The outrage is that QO re-reserves players - who have earned the right to freely shop theimselves around in a very controlled market - from free agency. As it is, these players are basically owned by teams for many years and fought for the right to have teams compete for their services. Free agency allows them to balance the negotiations between themselves and the people making money hand-over-fist on their talents. This is bad for the marketplace of baseball.