new CBA, good or bad?

[Mark68]

Harold Reynolds made the point that players put in their time under club control and reach free agency and if successful enough this ruling can block their ability to negotiate with all teams. Their pool may be restricted to ten teams with protected picks and those are usually the least disreable to play for.

Most people would stop reading after the first five words.

 

The rest of us read it just to find out how wrong he is. Two examples of Reynolds being wrong again: 2012 Angels and 2013 Angels.

[tdawg87]

Good thread flop.

 

I think something needs to change with the current system, though I'm not sure what. I think there needs to be a better incentive to not only make a player a QO, but for the player to actually accept it. Perhaps make the minimum amount something closer to 20 million. Teams will be less likely to make the QO to players who would otherwise be guaranteed to not accept it (if it were closer to what it is now) and will only offer it if they really want the player back. This helps not only the teams but the player as well. If a player like Kendrys Morales was offered a 1 year deal worth say, 18.5 million, I'm guessing he would accept it. If the M's don't offer him that much (because it's an absurd amount to pay a player of his caliber) then he is free to sign wherever and teams don't have to worry about losing a draft pick.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

Yes, I believe they can.  The amount can change though, since it's based on the average of the top 100 salaries or something like that.  

 

The way I understand it, a player has to be with his team for the entire year the previous season to get a QO. If a player sits out until June because of not being signed after getting a QO, he couldn't get a QO again.

 

Article from MLB Trade Rumors explaining qualifying offers

[HaloMagic]

Players turning down a team and being connected to draft pick compensation isn't a new thing. Players used to do it before and they weren't even looking at $14+mm in arbitration. Not sure why I would feel bad. Most of these players, maybe all of them, would have received less in arbitration under the old system. And if they turned down arbitration they'd be in the same situation. They should take the QO. It's like accepting arb but knowing exactly how much you'll get.

Edited February 6, 2014 by HaloMagic

[HaloMagic]

The impact of the huge TV deals is also something to consider. Many teams now have many millions to throw around that they did not have before. And then you look at the Atlanta Braves who signed a TV deal too soon and thus too cheap and now do not have the resources to hang onto their stars. Its going to be a long haul for the Braves.

Whoops.

[ukyah]

 

The way I understand it, a player has to be with his team for the entire year the previous season to get a QO. If a player sits out until June because of not being signed after getting a QO, he couldn't get a QO again.

 

Article from MLB Trade Rumors explaining qualifying offers

 

 

you're confused.  if a player refuses a QO, then he is a free agent and no longer a member of that team. the question is, if he accepted the QO could he be offered another QO the next year? 

 

the answer is, yes. unless there is a specific rule about offering back to back QO's, which i don't believe there is.

[moccasin]

Nice topic. I agree the CBA has got to be changed, because it discriminates and clearly punishes the FAs that are expected to get contracts of around 20-50M in free agency. Should try to get a more equal agreement.

[Stradling]

Here's a thought. If the player turns down a qualifying offer of say $14 million the team only gets the draft pick if the players average annual salary exceeds $14 million. That way fringe guys still can be offered a qualifying offer and have a decision to make and giving up true super stars still gets you a draft pick.

[Mark68]

Here's a thought. If the player turns down a qualifying offer of say $14 million the team only gets the draft pick if the players average annual salary exceeds $14 million. That way fringe guys still can be offered a qualifying offer and have a decision to make and giving up true super stars still gets you a draft pick.

A $14 million+ salary does not guarantee superstardom.

 

See Wells, Vernon.

[Stradling]

A $14 million+ salary does not guarantee superstardom.

See Wells, Vernon.

No it doesn't. No one on here would have an issue with giving up a draft pick for the guys that got over $14 million this offseason if it was a position of need, except maybe Garza or Beltran (not sure how much he got from the Yankees). Choo, Elsbury, Tanaka, Cano I don't think anyone would be complaining if we gave up a pick to get those guys.

[Homebrewer]

So, can Seattle just sign Morales for less money than the QO now?

[gotbeer]

Here's a thought. If the player turns down a qualifying offer of say $14 million the team only gets the draft pick if the players average annual salary exceeds $14 million. That way fringe guys still can be offered a qualifying offer and have a decision to make and giving up true super stars still gets you a draft pick.

 

Strad, I think that would open it up for a wide range of problems.  Would it be $14 for next years salary?  $14 AAV? $14 total?  $14 total is an obvious no go.  $14 AAV would probably be a no go because then the union will say you are trying to keep long term deal values down.  And $14 for next years salary would be collusion because teams would then backload contracts.  

[gotbeer]

So, can Seattle just sign Morales for less money than the QO now?

 

Yes.  They can sign him for whatever.  But the Mariners already signed a DH.  

[Homebrewer]

Yes.  They can sign him for whatever.  But the Mariners already signed a DH.  

OK...if they did sign him, would they need to wait until the June draft to trade him?

[gotbeer]

OK...if they did sign him, would they need to wait until the June draft to trade him?

 

That, I don't know.  I know there is some kind of provision in the CBA about you can't trade a player during a certain time.  Just can't find it when glancing through the CBA, and find out what it was regarding.  

[Homebrewer]

Either way, it sounds like Seattle might be his best/only option at this point. Sign a 1 year deal with them, fire Boras, and hope they can trade you somewhere. While this saddles Seattle with two DHs for a time, it seems to me they can use every bat they can get.

[Jeff Fletcher]

Can't trade a FA till June 15 without his consent. I suppose M's could sign morales intending to trade him and get his consent, but then you need to know in advance the third party and that's a lot

of variables.

[Stradling]

Strad, I think that would open it up for a wide range of problems. Would it be $14 for next years salary? $14 AAV? $14 total? $14 total is an obvious no go. $14 AAV would probably be a no go because then the union will say you are trying to keep long term deal values down. And $14 for next years salary would be collusion because teams would then backload contracts.

I would go $14 million AAV. If the player is worth more then he will get more.